this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
382 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59958 readers
5132 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 132 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

CEO Pat Gelsinger retired from the company after a distinguished 40-plus-year career and has stepped down from the board of directors, effective Dec. 1, 2024.

and

The board has formed a search committee and will work diligently and expeditiously to find a permanent successor to Gelsinger.

Wow, this is a really bad look for Intel. Gelsinger stepping down without Intel having a replacement! I always wonder when it doesn't say why a CEO is stepping down suddenly without warning.

It's notable that the announcement says nothing about Gelsinger having finished the part of the task he started on. It looks like they've lost confidence in Gelsinger (speculation). If that's true, it also means they've probably lost confidence in the entire rescue plan he started on?

This is a huge bombshell, and not very elegantly executed IMO. Not just effective immediately, but effective YESTERDAY!?

[–] gravitas_deficiency 39 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Tbh it’s not 100% his fault the engineering competence began to visibly crumble under his leadership, but at the same time he absolutely stayed the course that his predecessors chose, which is what got them here in the first place. So yeah, he deserves to be excoriated for this stuff, but so do his predecessors.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

he absolutely stayed the course that his predecessors chose,

Yes that part was always a bit confusing to me, because I couldn't really see anything new in his strategy, except he was doing it harder. But isn't that what it takes when you fall behind?
As much as I hate Gelsinger's pompous bragging style, it's hard to see what else they could do?

[–] gravitas_deficiency 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What they could have done is to try to reverse the hollowing out of their engineering divisions, and give them more agency and control in leadership. Finance types trying to min/max the P/E ratio is what got them where they are. Serious tech companies that do REAL engineering can’t really follow the norms that Wall Street loves these days and expect to remain technically cutting-edge.

Engineers are not really plug-and-play. Institutional expertise is a real and meaningful thing. They got here because their leadership has ignored those facts for at least a couple decades now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Stellantis CEO just abruptly quit yesterday or day before too.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

True, Stellantis has done extremely poorly the past couple of years IMO. They have several brands that usually feature in the top 10 most sold car models here (Denmark). But currently they have zero models even in top 20. Their EV cars are underwhelming generally offered with too small batteries, and are almost complete failures in the market. There have been some seriously wrong administrative decisions at the top.

Some of the same can possibly be said about Intel, except Intel was already in trouble when Gelsinger took over, and he is still working on the plan he set out to execute. Switching him out now looks really bad. Of course it may be they have to, disregarding how it looks.

With Stellantis it seems more the logical thing to do. Because Stellantis is bleeding, and losing market share fast.

Edit:
Huge difference with Stellantis is that they are quite open about the performance of the company has been poor, and that's the reason he retires abruptly.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yesterday was Sunday and the beginning of the month

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Which means it was kind of effective Friday, either way it doesn't change that it is very sudden.
If this was done properly, it should have been announced Friday at the latest.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Maybe Lisa Su goes to Intel 🙃

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Losing 16 billion dollars totally has nothing to do with this at all. Its time for Pat to pursue some creative hobbies at home, enjoy his retirement, and be with his family. There are no American troops in Baghdad, everything is fine, Intel is fine, and will soon be back to doing great things. Just ask Userbenchmark, Intel products are the best in class and highly sought after. nVidia has no real advantage in the AI race, and Intel is just dominating.

That 16 billion is just a brief hiccup, company is totally about to do great.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (24 children)

Maybe now they can forget all the expensive chipmaking and get back to their core business of stock buybacks.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

That's probably the real reason. He was going to invest all that money instead of doing more stock buybacks. What an idiot!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This simultaneously made me laugh and sad. Sad because I have heavy investments in Intel.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well their stock price just jumped up after this announcement.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To less than what it was a month ago.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

And more than what it will be next month.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

So what IS their strategy now?

Some of Pat's initiatives were good (stay the course with Xe and fabs, which take a long time to pan out), but they kept delaying everything!

Yet Intel is kind of screwed without good graphics or ML IP.

If they spin off the fabs, I feel like they are really screwed, as they will be left with nothing but shrinking businesses and no multi year efforts to get out of it.

Like... Even theoretically, I dont know what I would do to right Intel as CEO unless they can fix whatever is causing consistent delays, and clearly thats not happening. What is their path?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago

If they spin off the fabs, I feel like they are really screwed

One of the stipulations of the $8B in CHIPS Act funding that they just recieved last month was that they not separate their fabrication business from the parent company. That's unlikely to happen now unless it gets separated at a bankruptcy auction.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 10 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

unless they can fix whatever is causing consistent delays

Yup, that's their #1 goal right now. If I were CEO, I'd cut/sell any part of the business that doesn't directly support CPU and GPU sales, which is basically what Intel is doing. My priorities would be:

  1. rescue server CPU business - this is their main money printing machine, and while they may lose to ARM in the future, they need a cash cow in the medium term
  2. get a competent server-oriented GPU product out - they're late to the game, but they can bundle them w/ their server CPU contracts to get some market share; overwhelm these corporate customers with first class driver support
  3. get something to compete w/ Apple's M1 - this means super low-power CPU that can scale to gaming workloads, and capable-enough graphics (something a bit better than AMD's APUs); sell this near cost to keep a foot in the door in the mobile space
  4. sell domestic fab capacity - now is the time to get Sony and Microsoft on board with their next gen consoles, and it might not be too late for Nintendo

I would essentially ignore desktop workloads and solve workstation workloads w/ server chips. To me, those sound like the highest margin businesses that they could potentially still capture, and at least 1 & 2 are a bit less sensitive to being behind on their fab process (corporate contracts respond pretty well to bundle discounts).

This probably wouldn't work though, especially since I'm an outside observer with zero industry experience. But I think a good CEO would do something along those lines, which seems to be what Pat Gelsinger was going for as well.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

They tried all this:

  1. Not sure about this, but it appears AMD is simply out designing them. Some concepts like the many-little-core SKUs seem promising, but ultimately the EPYC MCM design is fundamentally very good here. And... Delays. Delays are killing them here.

  2. This was Xe-HPC, the Falcon Shores APU, the Falcon Shores GPU, Gaudi... They're so late to everything it didn't work and it appears they've basically given up on the whole line besides consumer inference products, which is also kinda meager atm. And even AMD is mightily struggling here, with hardware that is straight up bigger/faster than Nvidia.

  3. An M Pro esque chip was also in the plans, but seemingly canceled? Or way behind AMD, at least. And OEMs have repeatedly rejected their GPU heavy designs like Broadwell eDRAM and the AMD collab chip, as they're kinda idiots and Intel is at their mercy. And the laptop chips they are selling now are basically their best shot at an "M" chip and arguably one of their most decent products.

  4. They tried, and no one bit. Who can blame them, given Intel's history of delays?

Its all the delays! Its destroying them.

I mean I'd guess I'd press on with Xe if I were CEO, but if they can't launch anything on time what does it matter?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Flail until the light leaves their eyes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Man I hope Battlemage is an actually profitable launch, or at least not a massive loss. Otherwise who knows if the next CEO will axe their GPU line. People liked to fearmonger them killing Arc before, with with a new change in management I can actually see that happening.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Its a lower midrange only launch like it appears to be, it will be extremely unprofitable. AMD may even eat large chunks of this market with the Strix Halo APU, which could be similar to the B570 with no need for a discrete GPU.

Theres actually a big and growing demand for ANY high VRAM GPU for the LLM crowd (that AMD is ignoring for inexplicable reasons beyond Strix Halo) but it appears Intel can't even compete there. No 256 bit APU, their GPU is 192 bit so capped at like 24GB...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This is why I got a 4070 ti super because it has a 256 bit bus.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I hope Intel gets their act together soon. We can't have a monopoly on chips on the CPU or GPU space.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s baffling how fast they fell, since they had a monopoly for ~20 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm personally excited about the actual engineering challenges that come next and think that all 3 big foundries have roughly equal probability of coming out on top in the next stage, as the transistors become more complex three dimensional structures, and as the companies try to deliver power from the back side of the wafer rather than the crowded front side.

Samsung and Intel have always struggled with manufacturing finFETs with the yields/performance of TSMC. Intel's struggles to move on from 14nm led to some fun memes, but also reflected the fact that they hit a plateau they couldn't get around. Samsung and Intel have been eager to get off of the finFET paradigm and tried to jump early to Gate All Around FETs (GAAFETs, which Samsung calls MBCFET and Intel calls RibbonFET), while TSMC sticks around on finFET for another generation.

Samsung switched to GAAFET for its 3nm node, which began production in 2022, but the reports are that it took a while to get yields up to an acceptable level. Intel introduced GAAFET in its 20A node, but basically abandoned it before commercial production and put all of its resources into 18A, which they last reported should be ready for mass production in the first half of 2025 and will be ready for external customers to start taping out their own designs.

Meanwhile, TSMC's 3nm node is still all finFET. Basically the end of the line for this technology that catapulted TSMC way ahead of its peers. Its 2nm node will be the first TSMC node to use GAAFET, and they have quietly abandoned plans to introduce backside power in the generation after that, for their N2P. Their 1.6 nm node is going to have backside power, though. They'll be the last to marker with these two technologies, but maybe they're going to release a more polished process that still produces better results.

So you have the three competitors, with Samsung being the first to market, Intel likely being second, and TSMC being third, but with no guarantees that they'll all solve the next generation challenges in the same amount of lead time. It's a new season, and although past success does show some advantages and disadvantages that may still be there, none of it is a guarantee that the leader right now will remain a leader into the next few generations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The competition for CPUs can be AMD vs ARM vs RISC-V. It doesn't have to be between two x86 giants.

That's better, not necessarily for instruction set reasons, but because ARM and RISC-V are more open to multiple companies stepping in to produce chips.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Especially one just a small naval visit from China.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Damn. I actually thought he might turn things around back when he was brought in. Their engineers have let them down, how did they fall so far behind after being so far ahead just 15 years ago?

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They released the same 4 core CPUs for like 6 years in a row

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why innovate when line go up?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Profits go up if you don't invest in your company but instead pay your shareholders. But at some point you atrophied your R&D so much you have fallen behind and then the question becomes, do you bleed it dry and sell it for parts, or revitalize by investing. And if revitalizing is still viable.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's almost like maximizing profits over everything isn't a great idea.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you are a shareholder that gets the payout and make a profit.. it sure is. For everyone else... Who are we kidding. Fuck everyone else.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

Yup, I was being sarcastic, but I appreciate the response

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

It was 8 years ago. AMD was on the verge of bankruptcy and Intel had been propping them up for years so they wouldn't have to deal with the government going after them for having a total monopoly. If Zen had been a failure AMD wouldn't have survived. I figured Intel had advanced stuff in the pipeline that they were just sitting on waiting for AMD to force their hand (because they were dicks like that). I was wrong.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago

Hey man, they just renamed their newest chips to have a completely different confusing naming scheme! What more innovation do you want?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

I think we all thought that tbh. Intel let their hubris get them and this is the result.

They don't have innovation anymore, I don't know what they're doing and I don't think they do either.

I wish AMD would catch up in the GPU side of things so it wasn't such a monopoly with NVIDIA but I guess we'll see, I mean they did knock Intel down eventually so who knows maybe it's possible.

That would have gone truly horrible if AMD did go bankrupt, that would have been a really dark timeline for all of us.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's a story that's been repeating for decades now. Company creates a new market with new useful tech, run by engineers passionate about the tech, experiences exceptional growth, becomes large corporation, much larger than any competition. Uses relative wealth to keep competition from catching up. Eventually saturates market to the point where market growth doesn't finance the growing R&D expenses (which were tuned assuming previous rate of growth would just continue). At some point, profit increases start coming from business/marketing side of things more than engineering side, resulting in MBAs and marketers getting more promotions and eventually control of the company. Then tech stagnates because they don't think investing in R&D is as worthwhile. Also aren't able to prioritize what R&D is still happening effectively because they don't really understand the tech as well as engineers. But they tread water and even increase profits because they dominate the market.

Until competition that is engineering focused (often also made up of former engineers from the dominant company) catches up or creates a new market that makes theirs start going obsolete. Suddenly trouble, then they either pivot to quietly supporting businesses that continue using their products, or gets in trouble with the law because of increasingly anticompetitive practices.

Xerox could have owned the PC market but thought they could continue being a household name sticking with copiers. IBM outsourced everything and people eventually realized they didn't need IBM. ~~Foxconn~~Fairchild had two groups of engineers leave and create Intel and AMD when they were dissatisfied with how management was running the company. And now Intel coasted while AMD floundered and was completely unprepared for TSMC and AMD to make large technical leaps and surpass them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Foxconn had two groups of engineers leave and create Intel and AMD when they were dissatisfied with how management was running the company.

You're thinking of Fairchild, not Foxconn.

William Shockley led the team that invented the transistor while at Bell Labs, and then went on to move back to his home state of California to found his own company developing silicon transistors, ultimately resulting in the geographical area becoming known as Silicon Valley. Although a brilliant scientist and engineer, he was an abrasive manager, so 8 of his key researchers left the company to form Fairchild Semiconductor, a division of a camera and imaging company with close ties to military contracting.

The researchers at Fairchild developed the silicon integrated circuit (Texas Instruments developed the first integrated circuit with germanium, but it turns out that semiconductor material wasn't good for scaling and hit a dead end early on), and grew the company into a powerhouse. Infighting between engineers and management (especially east coast based management dictating what the west coast lab was doing) and Fairchild's policy of not sharing equity with employees, led Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce (who had been 2 of the 8 who left Shockley for Fairchild) to go and found Intel, poaching a talented young engineer named Andy Grove.

Intel originally focused on memory, but Grove recognized that the future value would be in processors, so they bet the company on that transition to logic chips, just in time for the computer memory market to get commoditized and for Japanese competition to crush the profit margins in that sector. By the 90's, Intel became known as the dominant company in CPUs. Intel survived more than one generation on top because they knew when to pivot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Damn, this guy is utterly fantastic at ruining huge tech firms.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Eh, he was handed a company in a bad strategic place and he did not fix it.

Lisa Su was in a similar position when she took over AMD, but she managed it. While I don't want to put too much emphasis on the CEO alone, AMD's turnaround is quite remarkable. They very easily could have collapsed at one point.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He was handed a company in a horrible strategic place and he did the right things to fix it. Reinvest in process technology mainly. Those investments do not bear fruit overnight. They take years. Whoever replaces him could basically be a stuffed suit and will probably have some success if only from his investments starting to pay off. It's too bad he didn't get a few more quarters to see it happen.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Nah, they're stuck. The most recent 2xx series Intel chips are actually on a better TSMC fab than what AMD's 9000 series chips are using, but you wouldn't know it from almost any benchmark available. Their architecture is just bad, and a fab improvement can't even save it.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I agree and my comment had obviously no nuance. I’m still dealing with VMware fallout in my professional life which is on Broadcom but still, this dude had control of another huge sinking ship previously…

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›